Vaughan's leadership and the fact that he was quite dominant in Australia last time should clearly see him selected if he is fit. He played quite poorly in the Ashes, but he still made a century, and despite the odd repeating problem against Lee and Warne you couldn't really say he was worked out comprehensively. He certainly outperformed Bell.

It's cold on the outside they say
But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

Oi. When you finish OD run chases rather than leaving them to the tail then I may have more sympathy for your cheek. I'm more concerned about Ashley getting his prosthetic hip through customs.

And also that anyone can rate Bell over Vaughan for a spot in the Test side.

But skip, I was just showing faith in you!

Big Ash would be a big loss, if not so much on the field, but a psycological one to the team. I think the side would want to land in Australia with the same 11-12 guys that did it last year, it'd be a big morale booster..

Vaughan's leadership and the fact that he was quite dominant in Australia last time should clearly see him selected if he is fit. He played quite poorly in the Ashes, but he still made a century, and despite the odd repeating problem against Lee and Warne you couldn't really say he was worked out comprehensively. He certainly outperformed Bell.

He did? Both of them were rubbish, especially by their standards.
Clearly Vaughan's captaincy is a reason why he'd be selected ahead of Bell, and rightly so, but if anyone seriously reckons his play on his last Ashes tour will make any difference whatsoever they're delusional.
Vaughan pretty much was worked-out, with the easiest strategy possible - just bowling at the stumps. He's been bowled far too often of late, though not as often as Gibbs.

Vaughan in Australia in 2002/03 was the best display of batsmanship Ive seen from of any overseas player on these shores. Three centuries; over 500 runs.

Dravid the following year?
Not to mention that Vaughan only truly performed once Australia's attack was shorn of first Warne, then McGrath, then Gillespie.
Yes, he got 177 at Adelaide, but as we all know it owed everything to that catch-that-wasn't from Langer.

...

Originally Posted by Richard

Dravid the following year?
Not to mention that Vaughan only truly performed once Australia's attack was shorn of first Warne, then McGrath, then Gillespie.
Yes, he got 177 at Adelaide, but as we all know it owed everything to that catch-that-wasn't from Langer.

Sorry and how many aggressive 177 innings have you witnessed without any chances going down?

Also how did Warne, McGrath and Gillespie get shorn of Australias attack?

Even the greats have admitted he doesn't look a shade of the player he was before and don't even bother to be so petty to ask me who, you know its true.

I will though if you wanna be so sad

If you came out and said that then even in Australia you'd get laughed at and pelted with rotten fruit and assisinated by the cricket greats.

I'd love to see Bell take part in the Ashes next year but I think that, if Vaughan is avaliable for selection, we should pick the captain over him. Bell is a good batsman and I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him, but, however inconsistent they both are, surely the more experienced player should be selected, even without the advantage of being a test-standard captain.